POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : Most incomprehensible films ever Server Time
16 Oct 2024 13:15:12 EDT (-0400)
  Most incomprehensible films ever (Message 49 to 58 of 278)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>
From: Gail Shaw
Subject: Re: Most incomprehensible films ever
Date: 4 Jan 2008 12:40:40
Message: <477e6f98@news.povray.org>
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:477e677d@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
>
> > "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> > news:477e49fd$1@news.povray.org...
>
> > > Oh, is that what that's supposed to be. (What is this monolith thing,
> > > and why is it there?)
>
> > Alien artifact. To kickstart human evolution.
>
>   Intelligent Design! ;)
>

Thank you. I nearly choked on my supper when I read that. *g*


Post a reply to this message

From: Orchid XP v7
Subject: Re: Most incomprehensible films ever
Date: 4 Jan 2008 13:32:03
Message: <477e7ba3$1@news.povray.org>
nemesis wrote:

>> and you didn't spot all the sudden jumps you described?
>> You've got to admit it's a long cut-jump.
> 
> Long cuts, same movie, same story.  The logical conclusion from seeing the bone
> in the air cut to a spaceship is pretty straightforward.  Would it really be
> worth it to show men's technical evolution through the ages?  It'd be boring
> and not as poetic as that hallmark of a scene...

The problem is, I watched this thing, and it just seemed to be a fairly 
random assemblage of different images with no obvious connection or 
meaning. Surely the creators had *something* in mind when they created 
this thing, but it's so far removed from what is actually visible on 
screen that it's very hard to guess what they were trying to say...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*


Post a reply to this message

From: Mike the Elder
Subject: Re: Most incomprehensible films ever
Date: 4 Jan 2008 13:55:00
Message: <web.477e80de8e000feee2b2e7080@news.povray.org>
"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:48:24 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
> spake, saying:
....
> "True. Okay we'll try that. Now next on the agenda spelling out suggestive
> words in clouds of dust..."

Couldn't resist...


Post a reply to this message


Attachments:
Download 'sugwords.jpg' (34 KB)

Preview of image 'sugwords.jpg'
sugwords.jpg


 

From: nemesis
Subject: Re: Most incomprehensible films ever
Date: 4 Jan 2008 14:15:00
Message: <web.477e855b8e000fee773c9a3e0@news.povray.org>
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> The problem is, I watched this thing, and it just seemed to be a fairly
> random assemblage of different images with no obvious connection or
> meaning.

surely there is this huge visual clue connecting it all together, namely a black
monolith?  Note the story isn't about people or any character in particular...


Post a reply to this message

From: Tim Cook
Subject: Re: Most incomprehensible films ever
Date: 4 Jan 2008 14:20:17
Message: <477e86f1$1@news.povray.org>
nemesis wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>> Yeah see Andrew, duh it's obviously an allegory for the life cycle. :-P
>> In seriousness for a moment...
> 
> it is:  unknown intelligent race devises a device (monolith) to spread
> intelligent life in the galaxy.  One of them ends up on Earth where it
> instigates apes to become the dominant life form on the planet.  They
> eventually get to a level of sophistication that allows them to travel through
> space and reach the moon where the beacon monolith warns the creators that the
> new intelligent species are now able to contact.  One of the species come in
> contact with the portal monolith and trips over to unknown place where it lives
> for the rest of his life.  When of old, at death bed he figures out the purpose
> of the monolith, represented as a baby in gestation.

Close, but not quite.  According to the book (which was written at the 
same time as the movie, but the movie got released first due to 
Kubrick's paranoia), Dave goes through the Stargate (long before 
MacGuyver got to it), sees various cosmic scenery, ends up in a holding 
cell whereby he spends the rest of his life.  The Monolith, programmed 
aeons ago by the aliens to do just this sort of thing, records his 
memories and, as his physical body dies, stores his essence in a lattice 
of light, hence the Star Child, newborn ambassador for Earth and toady 
for the aliens' designs.  Close the novel with him looking at shiny 
Earth and having the same thought of what to do with his abilities as 
Moon Watcher, the man-ape whose brains got stir-fried by the paleolithic 
monolith.

If you want incomprehensible-for-the-sake-of-being-artsy, check out the 
anime Ergo Proxy.  It's all deep and cerebral, right up to the very end, 
where...something anticlimactic happens.  And you, the viewer, goes "ho 
hum, that was lame compared to the buildup".

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------


Post a reply to this message

From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Most incomprehensible films ever
Date: 4 Jan 2008 14:32:18
Message: <477e89c2$1@news.povray.org>
Invisible wrote:
> It involves Bruce Willis in a dystopian future and a team of scientists 
> who keep sending him back in time to try to avert the terrorist 
> catastrophy that overtook civilisation

I think in the USA, it was just called "twelve monkeys". And it makes a 
lot of sense if you just watch it a couple times. (Unlike 2001, which is 
missing a whole bunch of story bits.)

> Basically, a very bad film that barely makes sense.

It was a great film!   "Bruce Willis, please report for Volunteer Duty!"

> I think I'd class that one more as "rather hard to follow" rather than 
> actually "incomprehensible".

12 monkeys was simply "hard to follow" too, as a time-travel movie.

> Ditto for 2001. (Seemingly a random selection of camera angles.)

It was a special-effects movie.The book makes more sense.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.


Post a reply to this message

From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Most incomprehensible films ever
Date: 4 Jan 2008 14:34:55
Message: <477e8a5f$1@news.povray.org>
Gilles Tran wrote:
> There's a movie called "The Island"

That was definitely rentable, altho I liked the book "Spares" much better.


-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.


Post a reply to this message

From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Most incomprehensible films ever
Date: 4 Jan 2008 14:37:44
Message: <477e8b08$1@news.povray.org>
Invisible wrote:
> But then, the film was so unrelentingly depressing that by then I'd 
> given up *trying* to understand it.

I would recommend you avoid "Pan's Labrynth" then too. I thought it was 
delightful, but you'd just be depressed.

 From another review:
"""
You know those movies where no matter how depressed you are, and how 
poorly things are going for you, you can just watch this movie and no 
matter how often you've seen it, it cheers you right up and you can face 
the day again?  Pan's Labrynth is like that, except exactly opposite.
"""

> Um... wuh??

I'm with you on this one. The book makes way more sense.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.


Post a reply to this message

From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Most incomprehensible films ever
Date: 4 Jan 2008 14:41:07
Message: <477e8bd3$1@news.povray.org>
Warp wrote:
>> Alien artifact. To kickstart human evolution.
>   Intelligent Design! ;)

That's one of the several ways in which you can have designed humans 
without God, which is why I don't understand the position of "evolution 
has problems, therefore it must be God."  :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.


Post a reply to this message

From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Most incomprehensible films ever
Date: 4 Jan 2008 14:43:52
Message: <477e8c78@news.povray.org>
nemesis wrote:
> When of old, at death bed he figures out the purpose
> of the monolith, represented as a baby in gestation.

Actually, if you read the second book, it is claimed that the baby is 
actually what the old man turns into, for reasons explained in the 
second book.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.